The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State …
Cemetery lists the NICS data for the entire year of 2008, up through October. There was definitely a spike beginning in October as gun owners read the writing on the wall in regards to the election. It’ll be very interesting to see the final November and December numbers once they come out.
UPDATE: November 2008 numbers are 1,529,635, so yup, quite a spike. Last year’s November numbers were half a million less.
Joe Huffman points out that the ParaUSA Calender’s December March model is non-functional. I have to admit I didn’t notice what was wrong until someone pointed it out, and then I felt stupid :)
Greg posted Part II.  If this is true, then I think most NFA rentals are probably unlawful?
The biggest misconception of the NFA is the definition of Transfer. Most lay people (non lawyers) would use the definition found in a dictionary to interpret a transfer. Unfortunately that is not the way it works with the law. When a word is defined in a statute, you must read the statute with the definition that is contained within. In this case the word transfer creates many pitfalls for the typical consumer. Until recently if you asked anyone if it was ok to let someone else use your silencer, SBR, or Machine Gun while in your presence at the rage, they would almost always say it was permitted.
In fact, this is a violation because it is a transfer under the NFA. Only in the last year or so, since I began pointing it out to consumers has there been anything written on this topic.
I always figured a transfer only happens if you assume physical control over the device outside of the supervision of the person who legally possess it. In other words, shooting a friends legal subgun on the range is fine. Taking it home with you is a transfer.
There’s been a bit of activity around the gun blogosphere about linky love not being shared as freely as some would like. This is the eternal problem of the blogger, namely, how to get linked and build an audience. There are some things I’ve found which work.
You have to think of your blog as an enterprise, so in order to get linked, you have to market yourself. Now, there are smart ways to market yourself, and annoying ways to market yourself. A smart way to market yourself is to pimp your best material around to other bloggers. Note that I’m saying your best material. Not all your material is great, because I know at least half (probably more) of the stuff I post is crap. There’s a fine line between occasionally e-mailing a post you think is good, and putting a blogger on your mailing list to receive every single post or mailing you send out. The former is acceptable, and even welcome. The latter is annoying.
A second way is to link to bloggers as a way of getting their attention. Now, when I say link, I don’t just mean point out something the other blogger said. If you’re linking up the food chain, this is especially important: the blogger up the food chain will know what he said. He will also likely know what other bloggers at his level in the food chain have said. The trick in marketing your blog through strategic linking is to offer something that advances the conversation. The essence of blogging really, is a rolling conversation (or rhetorical food fight, depending on the subject).
Understand that bloggers have editorial priorities. Even if what you have is very good, it might not fit in with what the blogger wants to blog about that day, or the blogger just might have better things to do at the moment, and by the time he gets around to your post, his editorial priorities are different. Also understand that bloggers who cover a lot of blogs, like I do, have to resort to a lot of skimming to get to it all. We miss a lot that way. Your fine literary work may have actually just gone unoticed by someone who does generally follow your blog. It happens. Also understand some bloggers are more generous with links that others. SayUncle links more than me, and I link more than, say, Jeff Soyer. If you target a blog who never links around, you’re a lot less likely to get something in return.
If you follow these guidelines, you should get links every now and then, and people will start noticing you. That assuming, of course, you’re following the first rule of blogging, which is to have something to say. A lot of bloggers post a lot, but don’t really say much. Having something to say can be a lot of work, but if you do, and you’re marketing well, things should be happening for you. If they aren’t, it’s likely a deficiency in one of those two key things.
Ahab has some things to say bout the proposal of the Indianapolis mayor that the state needs more Illinois style gun control laws. He’s certainly not the first Indiana mayor to think this.
UPDATE: Got that article confused with this one, where the mayor actually does advocate more gun control.
Brillianter has some interesting things to say about bringing knives to gunfights.
Great article in the Wall Street Journal today from someone who knows Margaret Thatcher, and can speak to her qualities vs. Sarah Palin:
Inevitably, Lloyd Bentsen’s famous put-down of Dan Quayle in the 1988 vice-presidential debate is resurrected, such as by Paul Waugh (in the London Evening Standard) and Marie Cocco (in the Washington Post): “Newsflash! Governor, You’re No Maggie Thatcher,” sneered Mr. Waugh. Added Ms. Coco, “now we know Sarah Palin is no Margaret Thatcher — and no Dan Quayle either!”
Jolly, rib-tickling stuff. But, as it happens, I know Margaret Thatcher. Margaret Thatcher is a friend of mine. And as a matter of fact, Margaret Thatcher and Sarah Palin have a great deal in common.
Read the whole thing. Well worth it. I think part of the reason I like Sarah Palin so much is because she upsets all the right people. I have a soft spot for troublemakers who can do it with a smile, and despite the fact that I probably have disagreements with her on social issues, I think she’s my kind of troublemaker.
My understanding is that one of the common failure modes in the otherwise pretty reliable Bersa Thunder .380 is the disconnector spring breaking. This happened to me when I was on the range one time, and after I got back, I tore the gun apart and stored the parts at the bottom of the safe for 6 years. I didn’t feel like I could trust it for carry anymore.
When the disconnector spring breaks, there’s nothing to force the disconnector up to engage the hammer release, and the pistol behaves as if the magazine is out. It’s one more reason why extraneous safeties don’t belong on a carry gun. But have no fear Bersa carriers, I have found a means for getting around this particular failure:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FawMaeSQBgA[/youtube]
So you know what this means right? Now you have to practice shooting sideways. When someone at the range gives you the evil eye because he thinks you’re fooling around shooting gansta style, you can explain to him that you’re practicing a failure drill.
UPDATE: Tam notes that this is technically an “immediate action” or “malf” drill :)
New Media ≠Old Radio
Let’s consider the Wikipedia definition:
New media is a term meant to encompass the emergence of digital, computerized, or networked information and communication technologies in the later part of the 20th century.Most technologies described as “new media” are digital, often having characteristics of being manipulable, networkable, dense, compressible, and impartial.
Although, from the sounds of it, since you don’t know what new media is, you probably don’t know what a crowdsourcing project like Wikipedia is.
Let’s establish that “Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck, among others” are not new media. That’s old media. In the case of some of them, pretty damn old media.
Seriously, NRA, what the hell are you thinking referring to Rush as “new media” multiple times?!? Just because an old media broadcaster favors your position doesn’t make them part of the new media movement. (NRA’s definition apparently includes any conservative voice, especially if it’s on old radio waves.)
I clicked on this article because tonight’s email alert featured a description about how new media would be under constant threat in the Obama Administration. That definitely got my interest because that would lead educated, tech savvy folks to assume that NRA sees serious value in new media and is going to help look out for our interests when they cross paths with the organization’s core mission. Exciting, right?
This appears to be a piece sent out through Publications, not ILA, the division most bloggers (*ahem* new media producers) work with in the organization. It’s such a disappointment because since I’m meeting with NRA staff in January to discuss the second annual new media outreach event, I would have assumed that most of their divisions “got it” or were “hip to the lingo” by now. Apparently, we still have a long way to go if Rush is considered a new media leader for having an old media radio show. Now I just have to hope that none of the new bloggers, podcasters, and other new media producers I have on my outreach list actually bother reading the column from Wayne. If they do, then I’ll try to embarrassingly cover for them and just say it’s apparently one clueless division that doesn’t get it yet. I mean, come on, the guy has had the same talk show since 1988. There’s nothing new about it.
UPDATE: Oh, the sheer irony of it! Guess what they link to in the same email alert? A blog. Specifically, The Volokh Conspiracy. In case you can’t imagine it, I’ll describe my reaction as something like rolled eyes. And a loud sigh.
UPDATE II: There was a misunderstanding that some thought I believed the email to come from Publications, I did not. I believed the column itself was written by Pubs and then sent out in the usual Grassroots email. However, I have since had it clarified that Publications had no part in writing the column. I apologize for the misunderstanding. Based on what I did know and also the standard practices I’m aware of in the corporate world, this would be the case. It’s not at NRA.
The premise that some office at NRA has someone who thinks a 102-year-old technology is somehow “new media” is still a very big problem. It’s something that still needs to be addressed. I am just happy to report that it turns out we know it’s not Publications.
Dave Hardy takes the Stevens dissent in Heller to task in a Northwestern University Law Review. A nice Christmas present to the gun community. Discrediting the Heller dissent will be important going forward.